|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2019 9:53:58 GMT
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect a certain level of prior knowledge - especially for such a well-known musical. I think it’s extremely unreasonable. If a piece of theatre relies on your previous knowledge then it isn’t doing its job properly and is excluding people - something which theatre gets accused of a lot anyway. Every piece of theatre should be aimed at the one person who has never seen the show before (be it Shakespeare or Sondheim); not the uber-fans who know every line. If things are not clear, then they haven’t done their job properly. While that may be true for most things, there really isn't much of an excuse for not knowing at least the most basic facts about a famous historical figure and the context. I'm not talking about details (the show should provide those), but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people either to know who Eva Peron was or to spend 30 seconds looking it up beforehand if they don't. Otherwise why bother booking the show if you know nothing at all about the subject matter? |
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Aug 11, 2019 10:02:49 GMT
I think it’s extremely unreasonable. If a piece of theatre relies on your previous knowledge then it isn’t doing its job properly and is excluding people - something which theatre gets accused of a lot anyway. Every piece of theatre should be aimed at the one person who has never seen the show before (be it Shakespeare or Sondheim); not the uber-fans who know every line. If things are not clear, then they haven’t done their job properly. While that may be true for most things, there really isn't much of an excuse for not knowing at least the most basic facts about a famous historical figure and the context. I'm not talking about details (the show should provide those), but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people either to know who Eva Peron was or to spend 30 seconds looking it up beforehand if they don't. Otherwise why bother booking the show if you know nothing at all about the subject matter? Because of the hype around it (the show in general, not this production specifically)? Everyone harps on about how good the score is and so people feel obliged to see it to tick it off their list. That’s why I went out of my way to Milton Keynes to see it a few years ago. (I should add I studied Eva Perón for A Level). When I went to Hamilton a couple of weeks ago I knew nothing. It’s not taught in schools over here so it’s their job to make sure they tell the story so it’s understandable (I’d say they did it 85% well). A show should tell a story (hi Cats) and be 100% self-contained. If it inspires you to go off and dig a little deeper, then great. If you have to check or ask what was going on during the show then they have failed. |
|
1,053 posts
|
Post by David J on Aug 11, 2019 10:05:53 GMT
I couldn’t tell you whether or not the harp death theme has been restored, but this production certainly worked for me. This is Evita for 2019, reimagined. Fresh, modern, exciting, and visually totally different to the Evita we are used to - but with reference to the ‘real’ Evita in the final seconds, which brought everything together beautifully. Jamie Lloyd has decided on his concept and stuck to it. To say that the piece lacks historical specificity is, I feel, missing the point. If you’re expecting a history lesson of the era, this probably isn’t the production for you. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect a certain level of prior knowledge - especially for such a well-known musical. The Adelphi revival left me fairly cold. I’m sure that was partly because the night I saw it, Elena Roger’s alternate was on - and (although she was excellent) in a production which was selling itself on having an Argentinian Eva, that wasn’t ideal. But also because I found it a very literal production, which - Latin orchestrations aside - did little for me. Though I know many people disagree! One thing I would say is that whilst her voice was good, I didn’t find Samantha Pauly the strongest singer - a bit lacking in control at times, and with the potential to border on shrill. I did wonder whether Marsha Songcombe will sing the part better. But these slight vocal concerns were a small price to pay for Samantha’s portrayal of a ruthless, self-assured, determined Evita who will do whatever it takes to get where she wants to be. The production is certainly bold and I can see why it would be polarising - but a definite thumbs up from me. To be clear I too found the production a refreshing detour from the historical focussed film and BK productions I have seen. It’s just the little inconsistencies and lines that now didn’t make sense piled up to indicate that Jamie Lloyd was more interested in his stylistic choices than whether each one of them made sense. Something I have had a problem with in his previous productions And like others have said, I wonder whether newcomers will be able to understand what’s going on from a narrative stand point. |
|
1,053 posts
|
Post by David J on Aug 11, 2019 10:13:23 GMT
I think it’s extremely unreasonable. If a piece of theatre relies on your previous knowledge then it isn’t doing its job properly and is excluding people - something which theatre gets accused of a lot anyway. Every piece of theatre should be aimed at the one person who has never seen the show before (be it Shakespeare or Sondheim); not the uber-fans who know every line. If things are not clear, then they haven’t done their job properly. While that may be true for most things, there really isn't much of an excuse for not knowing at least the most basic facts about a famous historical figure and the context. I'm not talking about details (the show should provide those), but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people either to know who Eva Peron was or to spend 30 seconds looking it up beforehand if they don't. If she was a famous historical figure over here we’d be learning about her in school. And I agree if you as a director expects your audience to read up on the subject before seeing your production then you’re not doing your job right |
|
1,861 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Aug 11, 2019 10:14:37 GMT
I know nothing or relatively nothing about this musical and will do some background reading before going to get a feel for what is going on to help me appreciate the intricacies of the Production.
Was at the Globe yesterday, two of the most popular/staged plays (As You Like It & Midsummer) and the number of people reading the synopsis before the start was significant and believe the appreciation of Shakespeare is enhanced by some background research which allows you to wallow in the beautiful language (the heart of Shakespeare) and the acting. (Saw an extremely poor Hamlet a few weeks back, the robustness of the language and my deep knowledge of the play allowed me to filter out the confused production and just soak in the genius of the text)
There are also plays that defy interpretation such as Beckett and Pinter which are the plays I appreciate the most as the questions raised whilst watching enhance the production and if strong enough enhance my education as I read up about the themes / ideas of the plays later.
Obviously there are some plays especially where the plot resolutions are significant where prior research will significantly impact the enjoyment of the plays and will rarely research new writing and only dig deep afterwards if the play has piqued me enough, in the case of Evita the plot is reasonable well known ever for a newbie like me that the little research I will do will not mean that the arc will be spoilt as even in this thread the ending is hinted at, if not openly referenced which would not be the case if I was seeing The Mousetrap.
|
|
134 posts
|
Post by Joseph Buquet on Aug 11, 2019 11:20:39 GMT
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect a certain level of prior knowledge - especially for such a well-known musical. I think it’s extremely unreasonable. If a piece of theatre relies on your previous knowledge then it isn’t doing its job properly and is excluding people - something which theatre gets accused of a lot anyway. Every piece of theatre should be aimed at the one person who has never seen the show before (be it Shakespeare or Sondheim); not the uber-fans who know every line. If things are not clear, then they haven’t done their job properly. EVERYTHING has an assumed level of knowledge to some extent. To have to contextualise everything in every show would be laborious and unnecessary. It’s a question of degree - you’ll probably be ok in Avenue Q if you don’t know who Gary Coleman is, but it’ll be better if you do (even the title of the show needs context!). Many of the jokes in The Book of Mormon rely on having a relatively detailed knowledge of Mormonism. So if you’d never heard of Mormons before the show, it would have a big impact. And trying Cabaret with no knowledge of WW2 would be hopeless. How could the moment when the Swastika on Ernst Ludwig’s arm is revealed have any impact if you didn’t know what it was? Everything happens within a particular context, and I think you’re taking your cultural capital for granted. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2019 14:32:01 GMT
And I agree if you as a director expects your audience to read up on the subject before seeing your production then you’re not doing your job right That's not what I said, in fact the opposite. I don't think it's at all unreasonable for people to be expected to find out the basics of a subject or person for themselves if they want to be fully prepared to see a show. Or to do it afterwards, whichever is your preference. A show's job is to entertain, not to spoon feed you history on a plate, particularly when doing basic research is so easy nowadays. |
|
751 posts
|
Post by horton on Aug 11, 2019 15:54:38 GMT
It's not an issue of spoon-feeding history, but this production is weak on clarity of story-telling.
Though it is visually breath-taking at times, this show singularly fails to create a world (unlike JCS produced here previously), so that it feels like a staged concert.
As with the Adelphi revival, the choreography feels like it belongs in a dance video, rather than helping to further the story: very decorative but not dramatic.
|
|
1,132 posts
|
Post by Stephen on Aug 12, 2019 14:38:02 GMT
I'd be grateful for a detailed pyrotechnic/loud noise breakdown so I'm not jumpy the whole way through. Theatre monkey mentions a few times when you know they're coming. Can anyone remember exact moments when they happen?
|
|
19,659 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 12, 2019 16:34:03 GMT
|
|
19,659 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 12, 2019 18:55:10 GMT
I’m not. I’m at the weekend. Still forecast heavy rain 😝😞😔
|
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Aug 12, 2019 19:09:53 GMT
What does Magaldi mean here any he says Eva’s act hasn’t changed? She’s not with another man at the time or doing anything else typical of her; It's him repeating the same insult she dishes out to him earlier in the show. Oh, I get that - but usually it also functions as an observation. Magaldi usually delivers that line after spotting Eva with another man; her "act" that hasn't "changed" is her social climbing through sex. Yet in this production she isn't with anyone, so it's hard to tell what he means. That's a good description of the choreography in this. I actually thought Rob Ashford's choreography in the Grandage revival did contribute to the storytelling...but here I found a lot of the dancing distracting and a little too wacky for the piece. |
|
7 posts
|
Post by deenajones on Aug 12, 2019 19:12:39 GMT
This has been getting quite the buzz in NYC. Have any video clips been released?
|
|
1,046 posts
|
Post by jgblunners on Aug 12, 2019 20:00:52 GMT
Oh, I get that - but usually it also functions as an observation. Magaldi usually delivers that line after spotting Eva with another man; her "act" that hasn't "changed" is her social climbing through sex. Yet in this production she isn't with anyone, so it's hard to tell what he means. Doesn't he say it just after Eva and Peron lock eyes for the first time? If so, then I think it's pretty clear from her body language that she's going to do the exact same thing with Peron as she did with Magaldi and he's recognised that. |
|
202 posts
|
Post by harry on Aug 13, 2019 15:02:42 GMT
I'd be grateful for a detailed pyrotechnic/loud noise breakdown so I'm not jumpy the whole way through. Theatre monkey mentions a few times when you know they're coming. Can anyone remember exact moments when they happen? Hi Steve, I've just dm-d you. |
|
781 posts
|
Post by latefortheoverture on Aug 13, 2019 19:18:24 GMT
Managed to get seats in row J seats 41, 42. Any words on if they're any good? They're all my mate could get!!
|
|
677 posts
|
Post by westendcub on Aug 13, 2019 21:44:34 GMT
Wow that was pure master class in taking a classic musical & making it feel new.
For me that felt vibrant, fresh & relevant - the direction & craft on display is something special!
The effects are fantastic & the dark simple stage is genius for this, the choreography is something I never thought I would see in this musical and yes our ‘Evita’ is a bitch throughout and I loved the performance along with ‘Che’.
Very lucky to have a lovely summers night, full house & was worth the wait since booking this one!!
Loved the symbolism of the balloons too!
High Flying Adored
|
|
781 posts
|
Post by latefortheoverture on Aug 14, 2019 10:35:13 GMT
Thanks @theatremonkey.com
|
|
3 posts
|
Post by chris on Aug 14, 2019 12:48:50 GMT
Wow that was pure master class in taking a classic musical & making it feel new. For me that felt vibrant, fresh & relevant - the direction & craft on display is something special! The effects are fantastic & the dark simple stage is genius for this, the choreography is something I never thought I would see in this musical and yes our ‘Evita’ is a bitch throughout and I loved the performance along with ‘Che’. Very lucky to have a lovely summers night, full house & was worth the wait since booking this one!! Loved the symbolism of the balloons too! High Flying Adored I agree with a lot of the comments made above. It was certainly a fresh and different interpretation of Evita, which (I thought) worked for the most part. It's clear that Samantha Pauly has been directed to play Eva in a certain way and I do wonder whether the audience needs to develop more sympathy for her? For me, the standout performance of the evening was Trent Saunders as Che. I loved his hard-edged cynicism and I did warm to Che. I noticed that he's adopted the Ricky Martin phrasing for High Flying, Adored. (i.e a rich beautiful thing of all the talents, a cross between a fantasy of the bedroom and a saint; earlier singers have sung it as rich beautiful thing <break> of all the talents, a cross between a fantasy of the bedroom and a saint). One other thing, at some point in Act 2 - I think during The Chorus Girl Hasn't Learned - Eva mouthed something to Che - it got a laugh from most of the theatre, but I couldn't see what she said from my seat. Anybody got any ideas? |
|
7 posts
|
Post by deenajones on Aug 14, 2019 15:24:35 GMT
Is there any video of this?
|
|
19,659 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 14, 2019 16:45:40 GMT
This has been getting quite the buzz in NYC. Have any video clips been released? Is there any video of this? Members aren’t allowed to share unofficial video of current productions on TheatreBoard. I’m sure there will be some somewhere if you go search on the usual sites but not on here. If there are any official clips, feel free to share them here. |
|
2,242 posts
|
Post by richey on Aug 14, 2019 20:14:13 GMT
Am loving this so far! We've had one extended show stop after 'night of a thousand stars' due to the rain and just made it to the interval when it started again. Fingers crossed we get Act 2
|
|
241 posts
|
Post by justafan on Aug 14, 2019 21:16:15 GMT
Am loving this so far! We've had one extended show stop after 'night of a thousand stars' due to the rain and just made it to the interval when it started again. Fingers crossed we get Act 2 Fingers crossed you saw a whole show |
|
2,242 posts
|
Post by richey on Aug 14, 2019 22:33:52 GMT
Well we made it all the way through without much more rain thankfully.
There's not a lot more I can say that hasn't already been said, it really was fabulous. The orchestra sounded stunning and the choreography was brilliant. There were more than a few goosebump moments, especially the opening and A New Argentina. I really liked the way they did Santa Evita, the little girl was great. The weather actually added it to in the end, the last twenty minutes were really atmospheric with the breeze blowing my poncho and the light drizzle during the Lament and Montage.
|
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Aug 15, 2019 1:13:53 GMT
I think it’s extremely unreasonable. If a piece of theatre relies on your previous knowledge then it isn’t doing its job properly and is excluding people - something which theatre gets accused of a lot anyway. Every piece of theatre should be aimed at the one person who has never seen the show before (be it Shakespeare or Sondheim); not the uber-fans who know every line. If things are not clear, then they haven’t done their job properly. EVERYTHING has an assumed level of knowledge to some extent. Really not. As usual this board brings out the worst in people trying to seem superior. Also, some of your post should be in spoiler tags. Other than a country and date to set the scene, a production should fill in the rest of the gaps by good direction/storytelling. |
|
